State v. Swenson

"Unless otherwise specified, a refusal to submit to a urine test, and a license suspension for refusing to submit to a urine test, have the same consequences as a refusal to submit to a breath test and license suspension for refusing to submit to a breath test." ORS 813.132.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for driving while suspended or revoked (DSWR). Following Defendant's conviction, the trial court sentenced her to probation and imposed conditions of probation that required her to submit to polygraph examinations and a blood or buccal sample. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's failure to acquit her on the charge of DSWR and imposition of the blood-or-buccal-sample condition. Defendant argued that because her license suspension was predicated on a failure to submit to a urine test rather than a breath or a blood test, she could not be convicted of misdemeanor DSWR. The State conceded that the trial court erred in imposing the blood-or-buccal-sample condition but argued that the conviction was valid because the plain terms of ORS 813.132 provide that the refusal of a urine test is to be treated the same as a breath test. "Unless otherwise specified, a refusal to submit to a urine test, and a license suspension for refusing to submit to a urine test, have the same consequences as a refusal to submit to a breath test and license suspension for refusing to submit to a breath test." ORS 813.132. The Court held that there is no statutory distinction between a suspension for failure to submit to a urine test and for failure to submit to a breath test. Portion of judgment imposing probation condition requiring blood or buccal sample on Count 2 reversed; remanded for sentencing; otherwise affirmed.